St. Louis proposes stadium I want little to do with

STLToday

 

 

The riverfront stadium plan was announced today. Everything I didn't like about the speculated plan naturally stayed intact.

* The plan claims there will be no increased burden on the taxpayers, yet the plan is to fund the stadium partially by extending the current bonds that are still paying off the Edward Jones Dome. One article I saw said that would contribute upwards of $300 million to the approximately $1 billion stadium play. How is that not an increased burden on the taxpayers?

* The planned capacity of the stadium is 64,000. That is 2,000 seats smaller than the Dome. The NFL won't hold a Super Bowl at a stadium under 70,000. Why would you build a SECOND new stadium for the NFL that won't meet Super Bowl requirements? The Dome was the ONLY indoor or warm-weather facility built since 1995 that did not host a Super Bowl. Every other such facility hosted a Super Bowl within a few years of its construction. The city is foolish to even start this plan without a guarantee from the league that it will host a Super Bowl.

* Of course, another big obstacle to that would be that the stadium will have no roof and would make St. Louis a cold-weather-only site. It's scheduled to be completed by 2020. I will be 55 years old then and will have little desire to sit outside for a football game in December. Did anybody associated with this plan survey any locals at all?

* Let me ask that again. Did anybody associated with this plan survey any locals at all? Season ticket holders in the new stadium will OF COURSE be asked to pay for ANOTHER PSL. Again, 55. I won't be going to games long enough the rest of my life to make that pay off.

* If this plan keeps an NFL team around for the hardier, younger, more enthusiastic fans, then more power to it. I would like to see St. Louis stay an NFL city and particularly a Rams city. I personally have no enthusiasm for the plan but I'll hope I'm in a very small minority.

-$-